Can You Own a Gun If You Use Marijuana? What Hemani Changed — and What It Didn't

This article reflects federal and state law as of October 2026. Laws in this area change frequently; verify current law in your state before relying on it. This is general information, not legal advice.

Two things happened in 2026 that have marijuana users who own guns, or want to, asking whether the rules have changed. In April, the federal government moved some marijuana into Schedule III. In June, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Hemani. Both are real changes. Neither one makes it legal for every marijuana user to buy or possess a firearm, and reading either one too broadly can lead to a federal felony.

Short version: Hemani is a narrow ruling about one prosecution. The federal statute is still on the books, Form 4473 still asks about marijuana, and a false answer on that form is a separate crime. If you use marijuana in any form, talk to a lawyer licensed in your state before you buy.

The law Hemani was about

Federal law makes it a crime for anyone "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" to possess or receive a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)). A companion provision, § 922(d)(3), makes it a crime to sell or give a gun to someone you know or have reasonable cause to believe is an unlawful user. The maximum penalty for violating either is 15 years in prison (18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8)).

Marijuana's status under federal law matters because "unlawful user" ties directly to the Controlled Substances Act. For decades, ATF's position has been that state legalization changes nothing. In a September 21, 2011 open letter to licensed dealers, ATF said a marijuana user is an unlawful user "regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes," and that a dealer who knows a buyer holds a state medical-marijuana card has "reasonable cause to believe" the buyer is prohibited. The Ninth Circuit upheld that position against a constitutional challenge in Wilson v. Lynch (2016).

What the Supreme Court decided in Hemani

United States v. Hemani (No. 24-1234) was argued March 2, 2026 and decided June 18, 2026. The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit, which had held § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to Ali Hemani.

The facts

During a 2022 search of his family's home, Hemani told agents he used marijuana about every other day. He surrendered a handgun and pointed agents to marijuana in the house. Agents also found cocaine, which he said was his but which he said he had not used recently. He was charged under § 922(g)(3) based on his marijuana use. The government did not allege that he was intoxicated while possessing the gun, that he had misused it, or that he was dangerous. Its theory was that regular unlawful use alone was enough.

The holding and the vote

No Justice dissented. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Kagan, concurred only in the judgment, which means they agreed with the outcome but not the majority's reasoning. Justice Thomas and Justice Jackson (joined by Justice Sotomayor) wrote separate concurrences. So the result was unanimous, and the majority opinion was 7–2.

Applying the history-and-tradition test from Bruen (see our Second Amendment after Bruen overview), the majority rejected the government's main historical analogy, which was older laws dealing with "habitual drunkards." Those laws targeted people so impaired they were practically unable to manage their own affairs, served different purposes (promoting work, protecting the drunkard's family and finances, and public morals), and generally required a court proceeding first. Section 922(g)(3), as the government read it, disarms anyone who regularly uses any amount of any controlled substance, automatically and with no process. The Court held that prosecuting Hemani on that basis was inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

What the Court expressly did not decide

This is the part that is easiest to miss. The majority listed what it was not addressing: "We do not address efforts to ban addicts … or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm. We do not address other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms. … We do not even address whether the government could bring a prosecution under § 922(g)(3) accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant's use of marijuana (or any other drug) renders him a danger to himself or others."

The Court also said nothing in its opinion should cast doubt on the felon-in-possession ban or the ban on people adjudicated mentally incompetent.

So § 922(g)(3) was not struck down. It was held unconstitutional as applied to one person, on the facts the government chose to charge. Prosecutors can still bring cases involving addiction, intoxication while armed, or individualized evidence of danger, and courts will now be sorting out where the line is.

What happened to similar cases

On June 29, 2026, the Court granted, vacated, and remanded Harris v. United States (No. 25-372), a Third Circuit § 922(g)(3) case, "for further consideration in light of United States v. Hemani." That means the Third Circuit must look at the case again, not that Harris won. Expect more of these as lower courts apply Hemani to defendants with different facts.

The rescheduling piece: what actually moved to Schedule III

Effective April 28, 2026, a final rule published at 91 Fed. Reg. 22714 placed two categories of marijuana in Schedule III:

• marijuana in an FDA-approved drug product, and
• marijuana "subject to a state medical marijuana license."

Everything else, including adult-use (recreational) marijuana and unlicensed marijuana, remains in Schedule I. The DEA held a separate administrative hearing from June 29 through July 15, 2026 on whether to move the rest of marijuana to Schedule III. As of late September 2026, the administrative law judge's recommended decision had not been issued, and the DEA Administrator will make the final call (Morgan Lewis summary).

Does Schedule III make a medical user a "lawful" user?

Not automatically, and this is where people get into trouble. Schedule III substances are still controlled substances. The rescheduling rule regulates registrants (growers, dispensaries, practitioners) and does not say anything about firearms or § 922(g)(3). Whether a state medical patient is now a lawful user under federal law depends on questions the rule doesn't answer directly, such as how a patient's purchase fits within federal prescription and registration requirements. The statute itself has not been amended.

ATF appears to be moving toward treating state-licensed medical use differently. In May 2026 it published a draft revision of Form 4473 that, according to NORML and other reporting, drops the warning that medical marijuana use is unlawful and keeps a warning that federal law does not permit recreational use. Comment periods on ATF's May 2026 Form 4473 proposals ran into July and August 2026. As of October 2026, no revised form had been confirmed as finalized or in use.

What Form 4473 asks today

The current Form 4473 (revised August 2023) asks at question 21.f: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" It carries this warning: "The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside."

Until a new form is approved and in use, that is the question you will answer at the counter.

ATF's January 2026 definition change

Separately, ATF changed the regulatory definition of "unlawful user" itself. An interim final rule effective January 22, 2026 (91 Fed. Reg. 2698) defines an unlawful user as someone who "regularly uses a controlled substance over an extended period of time continuing into the present," and states that a person is not an unlawful user if their use is "isolated or sporadic." It removed older examples that let a single failed drug test or a single drug arrest within the past year support an inference of unlawful use.

That narrows the definition for occasional users. It does not help someone who uses regularly. Hemani himself used about every other day.

Lying on the form is its own crime

Hemani addressed possession. It did not touch the false-statement laws, and those are often the bigger risk.

Making a knowingly false statement to a dealer about a fact material to the lawfulness of the sale violates 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), punishable by up to 10 years. A false statement in records a dealer must keep is a separate offense under § 924(a)(1), punishable by up to 5 years. These charges don't depend on whether you could constitutionally have been barred from owning the gun. The crime is the lie.

The federal prosecution of Hunter Biden shows how this works. In June 2024 a federal jury convicted him of three counts: two false-statement counts tied to the firearm purchase and one count of possession by an unlawful user under § 922(g)(3). He was pardoned on December 1, 2024 and the case was dismissed days later (CBS News). His case predates Hemani and ended in a pardon, not a ruling on § 922(g)(3). The point here is narrower: two of the three counts were about what he wrote on the form.

The Harris case the Court sent back also involved a buyer who answered "no" to the drug-use question on federal forms.

What this means if you use marijuana

None of the following is permission. It is a description of where the risk sits as of October 2026.

If you use adult-use (recreational) marijuana regularly, that marijuana is still Schedule I, the current form still asks, and § 922(g)(3) is still enforceable in cases the government can distinguish from Hemani. Answering "no" on Form 4473 while using regularly creates false-statement exposure regardless of Hemani.

If you are a state medical-marijuana patient, your marijuana may now be Schedule III, and ATF's draft form suggests a policy shift. But the statute is unchanged, the current form still treats medical use as unlawful, and, as of October 2026, no announcement withdrawing the 2011 open letter had been published.

If you used once or occasionally in the past, ATF's January 2026 definition says isolated or sporadic use does not make you an unlawful user. Even so, the form asks about your status now, and how "regular" and "recent" apply to your history is a legal judgment.

If you already own firearms and use marijuana, Hemani makes a possession-only prosecution like Hemani's much harder to bring. It does not protect being armed while impaired, and the Court expressly left intoxication cases open.

In every one of these situations the right move is the same: talk to a lawyer licensed in your state before you buy, and answer every question on Form 4473 truthfully. If you have a past drug-related conviction, our article on the federal firearms rights restoration program covers that separate process, and our first-time gun buyer guide walks through the purchase process itself.

What to watch

• The revised Form 4473, and whether ATF changes question 21.f and its warning.
• The DEA's decision on full rescheduling after the summer 2026 hearing.
• Lower-court rulings on remand, including Harris in the Third Circuit, which will show how courts apply Hemani to people with different facts.
• Any congressional response. The Court left room for Congress to write narrower, evidence-based restrictions.

Thinking about a first purchase and want to understand the paperwork? Browse our dealer directory to find dealers near you.